So it doesn't prevent restrictions on abortion.So it doesn't prevent restrictions on capital punishment.So it doesn't prevent restrictions on homosexual sodomy. oopsSo it doesn't prevent restrictions on restrictions on homosexual sodomy.

He's one of the people those Founders who were against a bill of rights feared. They feared some idiots would come along some day and say if a right wasn't included in the list, the idiots would think the Constitution didn't grant that right if it otherwise didn't list it has prohibited. Well, Scalia proved them right.

The scary part about this is that Scalia's vote is effectively doubled, because all Clarence Thomas does during arguments is ask "How'd Scalia vote?", vote that way, then go back to reading his copy of Juggs.

WorldCitizen:edmo: So it doesn't prevent restrictions on abortion.So it doesn't prevent restrictions on capital punishment.So it doesn't prevent restrictions on homosexual sodomy. oopsSo it doesn't prevent restrictions on restrictions on homosexual sodomy.

That's a pretty solid case there judge.Seems legit.

He's one of the people those Founders who were against a bill of rights feared. They feared some idiots would come along some day and say if a right wasn't included in the list, the idiots would think the Constitution didn't grant that right if it otherwise didn't list it has prohibited. Well, Scalia proved them right.

Not true.

Corporations don't have special rights in the Constitution, but that didn't stop Scalia from making some up. Now, if you're a real, flesh and blood person, Scalia thinks you only get the rights specifically granted in the bill of rights.

Aarontology:Corporations don't have special rights in the Constitution, but that didn't stop Scalia from making some up. Now, if you're a real, flesh and blood person, Scalia thinks you only get the rights specifically granted in the bill of rights.

kronicfeld:What "special rights" do "corporations" have that individuals do not?

They're taxed differently for starters. They can also limit their own personal responsibility for the things they do, something you or I cannot. They have the same rights as individuals without the same responsibilities or obligations.

kronicfeld:Aarontology: Corporations don't have special rights in the Constitution, but that didn't stop Scalia from making some up. Now, if you're a real, flesh and blood person, Scalia thinks you only get the rights specifically granted in the bill of rights.

But legal entities? Sky's the limit.

What "special rights" do "corporations" have that individuals do not?

Broadly speaking, all the legal rights and privileges of a citizen and none of the liabilities and restrictions.

kronicfeld:Aarontology: Corporations don't have special rights in the Constitution, but that didn't stop Scalia from making some up. Now, if you're a real, flesh and blood person, Scalia thinks you only get the rights specifically granted in the bill of rights.

And let me be clear, by calling Scalia an idiot I do not mean he is not intelligent. I just think his mind is so buried in ideology that he can't see outside of that ideology, and any mental resources he has are used to twist, rip, tear, and shred reality until it fits into the mold of his ideology, humanity be damned.

I think his point is that the state's have rights to do those things. The issue is that I don't believe the states have the rights to put those type of restrictions on individual liberty. He's still supportive of government rights over individual liberty...either the fed or the states....in both cases he's wrong.

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

Weaver95:"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

there are days when I think this man would bring back slavery.

Well, it was obviously the original intent of the Founders, so it would not be all that surprising.

WorldCitizen:And let me be clear, by calling Scalia an idiot I do not mean he is not intelligent. I just think his mind is so buried in ideology that he can't see outside of that ideology, and any mental resources he has are used to twist, rip, tear, and shred reality until it fits into the mold of his ideology, humanity be damned.

he certainly seems to have an authoritarian mindset, and I tend to believe that most authoritarians are mentally ill. with Scalia though, the guy seems to be actively and almost gleefully malicious. I think he knows exactly what he's doing, and believes that it's honestly the best way for him to do his job. it would be easier if he was mentally ill or 'merely' a fanatic. you could almost dismiss his ideology at that point. But he really seems to have thought things through and honestly believes that his way is the only way to live. that's f*cking scary as hell.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

WorldCitizen:Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

Weaver95:WorldCitizen: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand."Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

No he says anything that you can carry. It's a stupid argument because "bearing arms" meant serving in a military, but that's what he says it means. That's more of an NRA definition than something from the founding fathers.

It also means that the 2nd amendment allows you to have as much nerve gas as you can carry or a small nuclear bomb.

It also means that the 2nd amendment allows you to have as much nerve gas as you can carry or a small nuclear bomb.

if that were true, there would be a LOT of dead, burned out car wreckage at the end of damn near every on ramp along rt 81 in central Pennsylvania. learn to f*cking merge with traffic already, will you!? merge or BY FIRE BE PURGED!

WorldCitizen:Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

WorldCitizen:Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I think it's a reasonable argument. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that citizens can take up arms against the government if it becomes oppressive like the British or Republicans did, right? That doesn't seem like a fair fight if they've got nukes, drones, chemical weapons, etc and all I have is a pistol.

Theaetetus:WorldCitizen: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.

We're dead as a species then. If every individual has the right to a biological weapon that an wipe out all of humanity, it will be used by one out of the 310,000,000 people in the US. It only takes one to end it all. Any of the crazed shooters who just want to take out as many people as possible we've had armed with a biological weapon is the end of it all. Constitution: not a suicide pact for all of humanity.

vpb:Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

No he says anything that you can carry. It's a stupid argument because "bearing arms" meant serving in a military, but that's what he says it means. That's more of an NRA definition than something from the founding fathers.

It also means that the 2nd amendment allows you to have as much nerve gas as you can carry or a small nuclear bomb.

Technically the the word arms for guns has little to do with being able to carry the weapon. The root of the word is "to equip" or to use a tool. A tool for war doesn't necessarily mean it has to be carried, we just call our upper appendages arms because they are our main tools as well.

WorldCitizen:Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.

We're dead as a species then. If every individual has the right to a biological weapon that an wipe out all of humanity, it will be used by one out of the 310,000,000 people in the US. It only takes one to end it all. Any of the crazed shooters who just want to take out as many people as possible we've had armed with a biological weapon is the end of it all. Constitution: not a suicide pact for all of humanity.

So you're arguing that we should explicitly disregard the Constitution, as we shouldn't be bound to "a suicide pact for all of humanity"? Perhaps so, but that wasn't the question you originally asked - whether the 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens to keep nuclear arms. Certainly it does.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment gives you no right to use those arms. Certainly using a biological weapon to end it all is mass-murder at a minimum. You're not arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own handguns, for example, yet that doesn't mean that people have the right to shoot up a school. Clearly, the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" for victims of such shootings that needs to be disregarded, right?Finally, if someone is going to use a biological weapon to wipe out all of humanity, do you think the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper is going to aid or hinder them either way? Like there's someone out there right now who would be setting off a nuke in L.A., but for the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't come around to this understanding of the second amendment? "Gosh, they haven't yet ruled on this, so I guess I'll have to reset the timer again... Stupid Justices." I don't think so.

WorldCitizen:Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

Only if they're part of the "well-regulated militia," which is to say, the National Guard. It's funny to see how these guys cherry-pick the parts of the Constitution that they are going to get all literal about.

The Founders never imagined a standing army; they imagined each state would have a militia that showed up for drill with their own firearms. During a time of war the Feds would nationalize the state militias.

It's all right there in the Constitution, but since that's not what today's gun-fetishists want to believe, it's conveniently ignored.